Deniz Ticaret Hukuku

This study examines how the insurance companies intervene in the process during the precautionary attachment of the ships and whether they can pay the debt directly, within the framework of the judicial decisions submitted.

1. Intervention of insurance companies during the ship’s precautionary attachment process

The intervention of insurance companies (e.g. Club Insurance/P&I) that came into effect in favor of the debtor during the precautionary attachment process of the ships is not in the form of direct payment of the debt according to the basic decisions examined, but in accordance with Articles 1371 and 1372 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK). Submission of a letter of guarantee takes place through.

In the Decision of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 13.06.2016, numbered 2016/6225 E. and 2016/6550 K. and referring to this decision In the decision of the 17th Commercial Court of First Instance dated 24.12.2019, numbered 2015/669 E. and 2019/516 K.; It is seen that the client company’s club insurance submitted a letter of guarantee with an amount of 101.010 USD to the shipowner during the lien of the ship, and this letter was delivered to the creditor. The Court of Cassation accepted this guarantee, which was understood by the parties in accordance with Articles 1371 and 1372 of the TCC, as sufficient and approved the abolition of the precautionary lien.

Payment of debt: Relevant decisions do not include a separate provision, information or detailed analysis that the insurance companies have the authority to pay the debt directly or that they have removed the lien by paying the debt in cash. The process is concluded with the submission of the letter of guarantee to the file. In the justification of the Court of Cassation, it is emphasized that only the creditor insurance company that requests a lien can benefit from this guarantee, which is presented in accordance with Article 1472 of the TCC, for the purpose of paying debt.

2. Additional Contexts and Evaluations from Secondary Sources

While the secondary information provided does not offer a specific maritime law rule regarding the direct debt payment of the insurance companies in the shipment of the shipment, they provide the following additional contexts regarding the different types of interventions in the insurance companies (intervention as creditors, the right to appeal and the payment in general disputes):

A. Intervention of Insurance Companies as a creditor (support)

 Insurance companies often gain the right to succession due to the compensation they have paid to the insured, not in favor of the debtor, but to the insured foreclosure process. as a direct creditor is involved.

In the decision of the 17th Commercial Court of First Instance dated 23.11.2015, numbered 2015/54 E. and 2015/449 K.It is seen that the insurer of the cargo buyer gained succession by paying compensation and, as the maritime creditor, has reserved the ship in France as a reserve.

In the Decision of the 12th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice dated 06.02.2020, numbered 2020/117 E. and 2020/154 K., TCC art. Pursuant to 1352/1-h, it is stated that he requested a lien on the ship with a request for marine receivables, and that the court accepted the succession, but that the approximate proof could not be obtained, he refused the lien.

In addition, insurance companies, unpaid fleet liability insurance premiums (Istanbul Regional Court of Justice 14th Civil Chamber, 20.09.2023, 2023/1512 E., 2023/1397 K.) or Financial Liability Insurance Premium Receivables (11th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, 16.02.2017, 2016/1747 E., 2017/873 K.) can also request the seizure of ships as a direct creditor.

B. Insurance compensation subject to foreclosure

 In the decision of the 43rd Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice, dated 07.11.2024, numbered 2024/1636 E. and 2024/1624 K.It is seen that a P&I club insurer has requested a precautionary lien on the “full ziya insurance compensation” to be paid to the owner by the boat-machine insurer in order to ensure that the debris removal costs will be receivable. Although the defendant has argued that insurance compensation is not covered by the TCC in accordance with Article 1321/2 of the TCC, this situation shows that the compensations to be paid by the insurance companies can be indirectly included in the process within the scope of the right/receivable foreclosure of third parties.

C. Direct payment of debt and objection to attachment (General Disputes Non-Ships) 

Although there is no example of the insurance company paying the debt in cash in the decisions regarding the shipment, it is seen that the insurance companies intervene in the process by paying or objecting in the secondary decisions regarding the general commercial and traffic disputes:

Removal of lien by paying debt: In the decision of the 4th Civil Chamber of the Izmir Regional Court of Justice, dated 04.11.2024, numbered 2024/2996 E. and 2024/2370 K., in a general precautionary lien request, it is seen that the insurance company, which is the joint debtor of the verdict, paid 923,231.20 TL to the execution file and demanded the decision of the seizure from its own perspective. Similarly In the decision of the 17th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals dated 19.01.2016, numbered 2015/17708 E. and 2016/584 K., within the scope of the traffic accident policy, it was decided that the objection to the seizure remained unsubstantiated after the insurance company, which was debited within the scope of the traffic accident policy, deposited the debt in the execution file. These decisions show that insurance companies can terminate the lien by paying the debt directly within the scope of policy liability.

Objection with the defense of state control: Insurance companies object against the precautionary liens placed on their own assets, arguing that they are reliable joint stock companies subject to state (SEDDK/Treasury) control and that they are not likely to smuggle goods. The courts often accept these objections and abolish precautionary lien for insurance companies.Adana Regional Court of Justice 3rd Civil Chamber, 19.12.2023, 2022/526 E., 2023/2439 K.; İzmir Regional Court of Justice 11th Civil Chamber, 16.05.2025, 2025/548 E., 2025/808 K.; Adana Regional Court of Justice 9th Civil Chamber, 28.12.2023, 2023/1804 E., 2023/1417  k).

Result In the light of the judicial decisions examined; In the process of the ship’s precautionary attachment, the insurer of the debtor and the debtor’s intervention in the process is not in the form of direct payment of the debt, but in the TCC art. to the creditor within the scope of 1371-1372 Providing an adequate letter of guarantee and the lien is shifted on this guarantee. There is no clear provision regarding the direct payment authority or procedure of the insurance company in the decisions specific to the law. However, general law decisions, which are secondary sources, show that insurance companies actually have the opportunity to qualify the lien by making payments directly to the execution file within the policy limits. In addition, insurance companies often actively intervene in the process as the party requesting a precautionary lien as “creditor” for the compensations they have paid or premium receivables.

Why is expert lawyer support needed?

Marine trade law is a special field with a technical and international dimension, unlike classical execution and commercial law. In the shipment of shipment procedures;

Correct application of 1350 and its continuation articles of the TCC,

Legal evaluation of the adequacy of the guarantee,

Correct positioning of the role of the insurance company (Is it indebted, collateral or creditor),

Correct interpretation of the case law of the Supreme Court and the Regional Court of Justice,

It is of great importance to consider international maritime receivables and authorization rules.

The smallest legal error to be made in this process may cause the lien to be removed, the guarantee is deemed inadequate or the receivable cannot be collected. Therefore, especially ISTANBUL SEA TRADE LAW or TUZLA SEA TRADE LAW Getting support is critical to prevent loss of rights.

an expert in the field Tuzla Lawyer work with; It ensures the strategic and fast management of the process for both the creditor and the owner. At this point, obtaining support from expert law offices such as 2M Law Law Enforcement Office, experienced in maritime trade and foreclosure processes, will ensure that the process is carried out safely.

1. Statute of Limitations and Forfeiture Periods in Maritime Claims

In claims arising from maritime law, time limits vary according to the nature of the claim, within the framework of the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK) and related legislation. Failure to comply with these time limits is one of the most fundamental risks leading to the dismissal of the case without addressing its merits.

Freight and Demurrage Receivables: According to Article 1246 of the Turkish Commercial Code; all receivables arising from freight contracts, bills of lading or ship charter agreements 1 year It is subject to statute of limitations. This period begins to run from the date the debt becomes due.

Istanbul 17th Civil Commercial Court, 30.11.2022, 2021/492-2022/688: Demurrage#atfp_close_translate_span# will receive It has been confirmed that the period is one year and that the period begins with the payment becoming due.

Istanbul 17th Civil Commercial Court, 02.09.2021, 2020/122-2021/351: It has been ruled that the due date for container demurrage claims is “the date the container is returned empty to the actual carrier,” and failure to file a lawsuit within one year from this date results in the loss of rights.

Loss, Damage, and Delayed Delivery of Goods: According to Article 1188/1 of the Turkish Commercial Code, compensation lawsuits to be filed against the carrier. 1-year statute of limitations This period is subject to change. This period begins from the date the goods are delivered or should be delivered.

Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals, 13th Civil Chamber, 28.09.2023, 2023/1346-2023/1368: It was emphasized that the one-year period for claiming compensation for commodity damage is a forfeiture period, and that exceeding this period will result in the dismissal of the case on procedural grounds.

Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals, 14th Civil Chamber, 17.03.2022, 2019/1987-2022/331: NThe issuance of a warning notice does not interrupt the statute of limitations; failure to file a lawsuit or follow-up within the prescribed time limit is irreparable. It has been stated that this results in a loss of rights.

Those Who Will Receive Rescue and Assistance: According to Article 1261/5 of the repealed Turkish Commercial Code No. 6762, these receivables… 2 years It is subject to the statute of limitations. However, if the rescue operation is carried out by vessels or tugboats specifically dedicated to this purpose, different legal regimes (Turkish Commercial Code, Article 1230/last paragraph) may apply.

Antalya Regional Court of Appeals, 11th Civil Chamber, 04.07.2023, 2023/577-2023/1245: A debate arose as to whether the statute of limitations for salvage claims begins on the date the service ended or the date of the salvage operation; the Supreme Court overturned the decision and dismissed the case on the grounds that the tugboat was assigned to the salvage operation.

Passenger Transportation and Bodily Injuries: The statute of limitations for compensation claims filed by passengers who suffered physical harm in a maritime accident or by those who lost the support of deceased passengers. For 10 years.

Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber, 20.10.2014, 2014/9100-2014/15966: The court’s rejection decision, which was based on a one-year period, was overturned on the grounds that the ten-year period should be applied pursuant to Articles 767 and 1270 of the Turkish Commercial Code.

2. Time Management and Subrogation Risk in Recourse Cases

Although the statute of limitations in subrogation claims is generally considered to begin from the “payment date,” there are time restrictions in cases filed by insurance companies through subrogation.

Insurance Subrogation: When the insurer files a lawsuit as the successor of the injured party, it is subject to the same time limits as the original claimant.

Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals, 13th Civil Chamber, 02.10.2025, 2025/1217-2025/1587: It has been stated that the insurer cannot benefit from the 90-day additional recourse period in Article 1188/3 of the Turkish Commercial Code because it is the “successor of the injured party” and not the “person held responsible,” and therefore the standard 1-year period applies.

Beginning of Recourse: Court of Cassation, 11th Civil Chamber, October 31, 2012, Case No. 2011/6933-2012/17014  In its decision numbered [number], the court ruled that in recourse relationships, the statute of limitations begins from the date the original carrier makes the payment to the third party.is.

3. Procedural Steps and Selection of Competent Court

Choosing the wrong court or procedural deficiencies can lead to the expiration of statutes of limitations or the case being deemed not to have been filed.

Maritime Specialized Courts: In disputes arising from maritime trade, the competent courts are the Maritime Specialized Courts (or the Civil Commercial Courts acting in this capacity), and failure to file an appeal within the prescribed time limit after a decision of lack of jurisdiction carries the risk of losing your rights.

Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals, 43rd Civil Chamber, 01.02.2024, 2023/1652-2024/102: It has been warned that the Commercial Court must issue a decision of lack of jurisdiction in disputes of a consumer nature, and that failure to apply to the competent court will result in the case being deemed not to have been filed.

Mediation: In commercial disputes, the mediation process, which is a prerequisite for litigation, suspends the statute of limitations. However, accurately calculating the remaining time after the completion of the process is critical.Istanbul BAM 13th HD, 28.09.2023, 2023/1346-2023/1368 ).

4. Evidence Gathering and Burden of Proof

Winning a lawsuit concerning maritime claims depends on the timely and proper collection of technical evidence.

Critical Documents: Bills of lading, maritime reports, survey/expert reports, ship’s logbooks, email correspondence, and port records are essential evidence.

Lack of Proof: Istanbul 17th Commercial Court of First Instance, June 11, 2024, Case No. 2023/69-2024/269  In its decision numbered [number], the court ruled to dismiss the case because the plaintiff failed to substantiate their claims for damages and could not prove which invoice pertained to which transportation service.

Gross Negligence Exception: Istanbul 11th Commercial Court of First Instance, 18.09.2019, Case No. 2017/388-2019/625  The ruling stated that in cases where the carrier is found to be grossly negligent, a three-year statute of limitations could be applied instead of the one-year period.

5. Secondary Sources and Analogical Assessments

The following information has been compiled from secondary sources that, while not directly related to maritime claims, involve similar procedural risks:

CMR and Road Transport: In road transport (CMR), a strict one-year statute of limitations applies, and failure to prepare a damage report at the time of delivery or to notify within the specified period results in loss of rights.Bakırköy 8th ATM, 11.11.2025, 2025/693-2025/929 ).

Insurance Subrogation Protocols: It has been emphasized that correspondence based on recourse protocols between insurance companies does not always interrupt the statute of limitations arising from the transportation contract, and that claims not directed directly to the carrier do not suspend the period.Istanbul BAM 43rd HD, 21.09.2023, 2020/1468-2023/866 ).

General Trade Receivables: The fact that the amount of the debt will be determined by an expert report does not postpone the start of the statute of limitations; the period starts to run from the date of maturity or termination.Istanbul BAM 13th HD, 07.10.2021, 2021/1559-2021/1340 ).

Conclusion: In maritime claims, a short one-year statute of limitations and forfeiture periods are the rule. Incorrect determination of the maturity date, loss of time in a court without jurisdiction, or failure to submit evidence (surveys, journals, etc.) in a timely manner can result in irreparable loss of rights, with the case being dismissed without addressing the merits of the claim.

Frequently Asked Questions

Deniz alacaklarında zamanaşımı süresi ne kadardır?

Çoğu deniz alacağı (navlun, demuraj, yük hasarı vb.) için zamanaşımı süresi 1 yıldır ve bu süre kaçırılırsa dava reddedilir.

İhtar çekmek zamanaşımını durdurur mu?

Hayır. Noter ihtarı çekilmesi tek başına hak düşürücü süreyi durdurmaz, mutlaka dava veya icra takibi başlatılmalıdır.

Why is Expert Legal Support Necessary?

Maritime receivables are one of the riskiest areas of law in terms of deadlines. Incorrect calculation of deadlines, insufficient evidence, or filing a lawsuit in the wrong court can lead to the claim being dismissed without any examination. This is especially true for:

Correct calculation of the short one-year statute of limitations period,

Correctly determining the due date,

Filing the application in the correct court and at the right time,

The rapid collection of technical evidence such as ship logs, bills of lading, and survey reports is of vital importance.

Even a small mistake in this process can lead to irreparable loss of rights. Therefore, working with a lawyer experienced in maritime trade is critically important.

2M Law Firm, operating in the ports of Istanbul, Tuzla, Kocaeli, and Yalova and specializing in maritime law, secures your rights by managing maritime debt collection, provisional attachment, and litigation processes quickly and effectively. It is always more advantageous to work with specialized local lawyers such as Istanbul maritime trade law lawyers, Tuzla maritime law lawyers, and Gebze maritime law lawyers..